Changes To Scoring In Versus Events

whitecat31

Ok. In one of the events I am in. I attacked somebody who was worth 40+ points to me. Later they retaliated and they had a score of 388 and I had a score of about 212. I gained 12 points from that defensive win. So instead of getting say 35 to 38 points, I only gained 12.

One of the joys of this game is to get one of those rare defensive wins. The thing that MPQ says only happens like 10 percent of the time. Well that is why it is so dang joyful. MPQ just cut that joy away.


Another joy is taking on a team that seriously outclasses your team and winning.
Since it seems that if you lose, you will lose even more points, it makes risks like that not worth it.

You guys could always return the scoring system you had before you did the recent point gain changes. But hey, that would be admitting some type of mistake. Oh I know. This too shall pass.

TheOncomingStorm

I thought they would have made a change similar to how they fixed tanking by retreating. Def losses would still generate points if player plays till all of one team's characters are dead. The result would be losing player loses points, winning player gains. However, If a player just retreats, the retreating player loses points, but the other player does not gain points.

Would have been simple and close the retreat boosting loophole.

Unknown

CrookedKnight wrote:

Phantron, I'd be shocked if the number of points lost for a failed attack is going down. As long as attacking someone and retreating produces a net increase in points the round robin exploit is still there.

I thought about that scenario but in that case you'd have a system where points can leak out of the system, as losing on an attack means there are less points in the pool compared to before which would make everything harder so I ruled it out. Could be wishful thinking.

fmftint

once again instead of simplifying a system, they add more moving parts.

Unknown

I think the question we need answer is that suppose you get +25 for winning and you'd get -25 for losing currently. In this new system, in the absence of any modifier that decrease the point loss (your PvP rating is at 1K or above), do you lose 25 for losing or 8? We know that the opponent only gets +8 for winning on defense, but does the attacker lose only 8 points or the full 25? If it's the latter, you've some serious point leakage going on and it can make climbing impossible.

CrookedKnight

Given that attackers win 90% of the time I'm not sure how serious that point leakage can be.

Unknown

So, basically, what I've been able to pull from this:

A)25 points used to be the norm for like-leveled people. Now it's around 38 or so? So that's about a 13-20 point increase depending. Not sure if the limit is still 50 I can win from one match or if it's more now.

B)The progression rewards will be the same. So, it's still 1000 for a 4* & 725 for the last gasp of hero points. Those are usually the two I care about.

C)If I lose on defense, I'll lose about 5-10 more points depending.

I see this as an overall positive, and will let me get more 4*'s for less shields. Am I missing something here?

However, this doesn't seem to address the concern that people who start on the early half of PVP's are basically food for the people that start later. I don't know if there is a good answer to that. It might just be the nature of the beast.

Stax the Foyer

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Stax the Foyer wrote:

Sure, if these changes actually move the equilibrium point up.

Don't forget, that equilibrium point over the past two seasons or so has also been affected by a non-trivial amount of retreat boosting to inflate scores. Those are high-value targets, especially early on in the match, that gave other people targets to climb off of.

That's going away, and many of the other factors that likely drove the equilibrium point down are still here: Increased volatility due to increased match length, which increases the likelihood of losses and which uses more health packs, limiting climbs. Increased visibility to lower rosters making it more likely to be hit while floating or hopping. Plus, decreased interest from PvPers who previously scored higher.

I'm not so sure that the equilibrium point is going to go up significantly. I'd be pleased if it did, but we'll see how it plays out.

I think we're talking about two different points. I'm talking the point where you can sleep unshielded, which retreat boosting wouldn't effect, and obviously there's no hopping there either (no high end player is hopping at 400 points).

No we're definitely talking about the same thing. The level at which you can sit unshielded is directly affected by the people ahead of you at any given time.

There's a constant influx of new players starting at 0 (or at 70 assuming they see seed teams) which means that if you're a valuable target to them at a given point level, you'll be attacked. If you're not attacked, it's probably because there were targets out there that provided a better reward/risk ratio. In a world where the player can win against overmatched opponents because of the AI's limitations, that happens when there are people with similar teams at higher point levels than you (because they're actively climbing at that time, or shield hopping).

Points spill downward, especially when people are hitting shielded targets. So having people retreat boosting to get progression awards, or shield hopping at high point levels, means that the point levels of all of the active players are pushed upwards. It's those higher point values of active players fielding similar teams that protect you at your equilibrium score. When there are more people active at higher point values, your equilibrium score will go up, because there will be similar targets available to players that are worth more points than your team.

When you take away the retreat boosting, or make it harder to reliably shield hop, the scores of active players will drop, and that will have a negative effect on equilibrium values of floating players, as well.

What remains to be seen is whether that will be outweighed by the higher peaks from equilibrium that active players will be able to reach with larger win values. That probably depends on how active a bracket is overall.

Unknown

ShazamFTW wrote:

So, basically, what I've been able to pull from this:

A)25 points used to be the norm for like-leveled people. Now it's around 38 or so? So that's about a 13-20 point increase depending. Not sure if the limit is still 50 I can win from one match or if it's more now.

B)The progression rewards will be the same. So, it's still 1000 for a 4* & 725 for the last gasp of hero points. Those are usually the two I care about.

C)If I lose on defense, I'll lose about 5-10 more points depending.

I see this as an overall positive, and will let me get more 4*'s for less shields. Am I missing something here?

However, this doesn't seem to address the concern that people who start on the early half of PVP's are basically food for the people that start later. I don't know if there is a good answer to that. It might just be the nature of the beast.

You forgot the main point of the entire thing. You know when people lose to your team and you get +12 points? That's now 4 points. Remember those amazingly rare occurrences where someone who was a little over your level lost to you and you got bumped for 24 points? That's now 8 points.

For all effective purposes this "update" removes all relevance of defensive wins. Let me make this perfectly clear for those that don't know how to feel about this.

THIS CHANGE REMOVES DEFENSIVE WINS FROM THE GAME IN ANY WAY THAT MATTERS.

evil panda

I'm going to give it a chance. The way I see it:

- I win a lot more PVP matches than I lose, so all else being equal, I figure I'll come out ahead

- base value of defensive losses are usually worth less than offensive wins, so if you boost both by 50%, 50% of a greater number is more

- I don't get a decent amount of defensive wins, but maybe my guys are just tinykitty slackers

so let's see what happens. If I'm wrong, save a pitchfork for me please.

I know the snipes will be infuriating but maaaybeee....if we, ahem, all tried not to hit each other while unshielded....ahem...nah that would never happen

aesthetocyst

evil panda wrote:

if we, ahem, all tried not to hit each other while unshielded....ahem...nah that would never happen

First step ... segregate shield hoppers from non-hoppers ... looks like we are stuck at step one.

Tell me again why all players, regardless of experience, goals, play styles, etc, etc, etc, are in a common pool, only segregated by the most arbitrary, incidental parameter, time?

fmftint

aesthetocyst wrote:

evil panda wrote:

if we, ahem, all tried not to hit each other while unshielded....ahem...nah that would never happen

First step ... segregate shield hoppers from non-hoppers ... looks like we are stuck at step one.

Tell me again why all players, regardless of experience, goals, play styles, etc, etc, etc, are in a common pool, only segregated by the most arbitrary, incidental parameter, time?

That's how Demiurge rolls

Unknown

All I'm hearing from these changes is "start later and take fewer risks." The last thing they need to do is penalize defensive losses - which you have literally no control over - more. This would be a better game if they removed them entirely. They could take defensive wins at the same time, if they wanted to.

Yes, it might cost them some shield money, but it would make PVP more playable. And for everyone saying "it just rewards the grinders more," explain how that's different and/or worse.

Unknown

Yeah this has a nice side effect of making coordinated hopping even more essential and profitable than its ever been. It could make it so the only way to ever get top progression is using battle chats.

JVReal

They took away the downvote button about a week too soon.

Not a fan of this change. Ai plays defense like **** so i win less and lose more when the ai plays on my behalf. I should lose less specifically because a dumb ai is playing on my behalf.

Pylgrim

ArkPrime wrote:

Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?

Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome.

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

dr tinykittylove

Pylgrim wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?

Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome.

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

I think what they're all talking about is the fact that you can only win one match at a time, but you can lose half a dozen or more at the same time if you're unlucky. Even more fun if all of them were hitting you for 40 pts already.

Stax the Foyer

Pylgrim wrote:

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

That changes at high point levels, which is what most people are concerned about. At a certain point level, winning more than you lose becomes a matter of luck, when defensive losses become a factor. This makes the bad luck more painful.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

Wait. So all you changed so far is that we're going to lose way more points if we lose a match. Is that your awesome pvp scoring system change so far?

Er, in the example given by Will, in the past, from a defeat where the attacker got 25 points, the loser would lose 13 points, a 52% of the points given. In the new format, it's only 50%. Yes, on the paper you are losing more points on a defeat (6 more in the example given), but you also are scoring much more when you win (13 points more). So lets say that following exactly those numbers, you win once and are defeated once: Before you'd end with a total of +12 points, from now on, you'll end with a total of +19 points. An unarguably positive outcome.

Also, if you are playing properly, you should be winning much, much more often than being defeated so that positive score compounds.

Er, except the positive part of the changes only takes effect in the next season, but we got the patch for the negative part of it even before this announcement. Er.

Unknown

For developers, you aren't very creative. This seems like a short term fix for a broken pvp system. I think a deserter debuff would have been much better than what you so called professionals decided on. I'm starting to wonder if anyone working for D3 plays this game.....